Posts by DS-21
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
1 - 20 of 21393 Posts
I don't doubt JA heard what he heard (and Dr. Murphy's comments about the alcove make perfect sense), but I wonder why he'd attribute the bass decay ("slow" means "notes hanging out there" to me) to the bass alignment rather than the room.
He should really know better than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz092888 /t/1348949/philharmonic-audio-dennis-murphy/3000_100#post_22221602
(about the Philharmonic 3's)
Courtesy of John Atkinson
http://www.stereophile.com/content/capital-audiofest151day-two-morning
Can someone explain this to a bit of a dunce like me? Because apparently he and I aren't hearing the same things.![]()
I don't doubt JA heard what he heard (and Dr. Murphy's comments about the alcove make perfect sense), but I wonder why he'd attribute the bass decay ("slow" means "notes hanging out there" to me) to the bass alignment rather than the room.
He should really know better than that.
That's plausible. One thing I've been curious about with the Drivecores is how the output filter is implemented. With most Class D amps, the output filter can interact with the loudspeaker, leading to sonic differences in the upper midrange and treble.
The Legacy Focus may be one speaker that is especially sensitive to such effects. Here's Stereophile's impedance measurement for an earlier Legacy Focus model:
Interesting. What does the speakers' impedance curve look like in the treble? (I tried to find it on the website, but it's confusingly done, and I didn't have that much time to sort through it.)
That's plausible. One thing I've been curious about with the Drivecores is how the output filter is implemented. With most Class D amps, the output filter can interact with the loudspeaker, leading to sonic differences in the upper midrange and treble.
The Legacy Focus may be one speaker that is especially sensitive to such effects. Here's Stereophile's impedance measurement for an earlier Legacy Focus model:
Interesting. What does the speakers' impedance curve look like in the treble? (I tried to find it on the website, but it's confusingly done, and I didn't have that much time to sort through it.)
Two (mains) speakers is better than one (sub) in the modal region. Multiple subs will be cleaner in the modal region than two mains, though.
By themselves, or with the mains playing?
When a sub is localizable that low, it's usually because something in the room is rattling or buzzing along with it.
Two (mains) speakers is better than one (sub) in the modal region. Multiple subs will be cleaner in the modal region than two mains, though.
By themselves, or with the mains playing?
When a sub is localizable that low, it's usually because something in the room is rattling or buzzing along with it.
I have, many times. But the cause turned out in the end to always be something other than the crossover frequency. Even though in the beginning one usually suspects that the sub is running too high. Sometimes it has been that the sub was running too hot. If you were "level matching" or "gain matching" the subs rather than applying a more thoughtful sequential calibration procedure, that could have been the issue too.
But if one doesn't care to analyze the situation with some rigor, then that's one's own issue.
I have, many times. But the cause turned out in the end to always be something other than the crossover frequency. Even though in the beginning one usually suspects that the sub is running too high. Sometimes it has been that the sub was running too hot. If you were "level matching" or "gain matching" the subs rather than applying a more thoughtful sequential calibration procedure, that could have been the issue too.
But if one doesn't care to analyze the situation with some rigor, then that's one's own issue.
The correct setup would be three towers in front, whatever in back.
A phantom center is usually a better option than a toppled MTM. There's just nothing good about them. Doesn't matter if you designed it, or Andrew Jones designed it, etc. It's just not possible to make one that's any good. I bet yours stood up would make a pretty good center, but on its side not so much.
I think that the horrid toppled MTM center topology is one of the big reasons why multichannel music never really took off. Format war (DVD-A vs. SACD) plus bad sound because most of the commercial centers were toppled MTMs and therefore sucked.
You clearly don't care much about multichannel, which is fair enough.
But try listening to something like this with two good speakers for L/R and a toppled MTM (any of them; by definition a toppled MTM is not a good speaker) for the center. You will see my point of view.
I would go phantom center before wasting money on a toppled MTM. Any toppled MTM. So two AA towers in front, 2-4 AA monitors depending on if you want just surround or surround side/surround rear.
You clearly didn't follow my link, because that was a three channel recording. You should check out that Mercury Living Presence series of SACDs. They make you sad to think about how much fidelity was lost in the cramdown of stereo from three channel to two channel. (Stereo was, of course, designed as a 3-channel medium.)
I've also never seen a unicorn or thought that the way to cut a deficit is to reduce taxes.
A good toppled-MTM speaker is like a good polyester shirt. It's just not a real existing thing one finds in the real world.
How about you post a polar map of your toppled MTM center? There's a reason why speaker companies based on serious engineering (the KEFs, Revels, Pioneers, etc.) only use that configuration on their cheapest speaker lines. Even the $500 Infinity center channel has real design, W(MT)W with a waveguide on the tweeter.
I do agree with you that many multichannel recordings are gimmicky, and actually sound better played in 2 channel with matrix surround extraction. But merely good multichannel blows outstanding two channel out of the water, IMO.
The reason is that they have polar map. We know that a high-fidelity loudspeaker must meet the following criteria.
1) Flat and smooth axial response
2) Smooth horizontal polar response (there are arguments that it should be wide, that it should be narrow, etc.
3) Sufficient volume displacement to reach the desired SPL without overloading.
That's really it. Even things like diffraction mostly pop up in the context of #1 and #2 .
A toppled-MTM must fail #2 , unless we're talking about something like a pair of 2" drivers around a .75" tweeter. And in most setups that configuration will fail #3 .
The reason polars matter so much is simply because rooms have reflections. Which is why the
"as long as you're in the lobe" argument is spurious nonsense. Unless one lives in an an anechoic chamber, in which case there are other issues. Spectral shifts in reflections not only affect perception of imaging, but also dialog intelligibility.
A 2-way is just fine, if it uses concentric drivers (with a tweeter sufficiently stout to match the directivity of the woofer at the top of its passband) or a waveguide-loaded tweeter (same caveat). But yes, the typical 7" 2-way with a 1" dome tweeter on a 180deg waveguide (i.e. flush on a baffle) is also an inherently low-fidelity design and should be avoided.
I never realized how deep those are!
I'm also surprised you use binding posts between bass cabinet and head. A Speakon would be better in every way: easier, with just one hole for base and one for head; cheaper; and impossible for an owner to miswire.
I’d actually look for the older Q100. The newer drivers seem decontented compared to the old. Stamped steel baskets instead of cast alloy, for example.
In fairness the Beolab 90 is a good deal more sophisticated - active, variable directivity - and the drive unit BOM is quite a bit higher as well. As for sound, Prof. Rubinson gave it a glowing review.There is something to say beyond certain points, all money will be spent on "exotic" cabinet design and prestige.
These two are quite popular in Asia:
$100KBeolab 90 - Ultimate High-End 8,200W Speakers | B&O
Perhaps the world's most advanced digital loudspeaker. Bang & Olufsen's flagship stereo speakers adapting seamlessly to your living space.www.bang-olufsen.com
$40KBeolab 50 - Graceful & High-end Active Loudspeaker | B&O
Beolab 50 Stereo Speakers will elevate your home theatre setup in your living room as front speakers or when you want to enjoy music in hi-fi sound.
No idea how they sound. For several big budget interior designers that I know, it does say I'm "comfortable" when they put these speakers as part of the design. (their interior budget usually runs for $700K for a three bedroom apartment)
It takes nothing away from what y’all are doing - which is fantastic - to acknowledge B&O’s achievements here. Incidentally, I think your tower is better looking!
Keep in mind that human loudness perception is a bit circular - the dynamic performance of the loudspeaker and the ear/brain in a feedback loop. There’s
compression and other distortion from the loudspeaker, and diffraction perception is likely level dependent (Lee/Geddes).
If you’ve ever listened to a system with massive dynamic headroom and attention to cabinet diffraction, you’ve probably observed that high SPL doesn’t “sound loud.” It just sounds more expansive. You might not even realize how loud it is until you try to talk to someone and realize you have to shout to be heard. However, a system with less headroom will start to "sound loud" at much lower absolute levels.
One can argue that a speaker with dynamic limits that promote safer listening levels is a good thing. But one can’t really generalize on perceived level without considering the loudspeakers and power behind them.
I would read some LS50W2 and LS60 owner's discussions to see if that's accurate…
I don't understand why this is hard for audio companies. AirPlay has worked reliably for about 2 decades!
Pretty voice, but Jeff Buckley's spinning in his grave at the commentary. I imagine Leonard Cohen's heirs or assigns like it just fine though.
PS thanks for prompting me to put on some Jeff Buckley tonight!
Why? The research leads to the conclusion that we only cue on the steady state room response in the bass. Otherwise the direct field dominates.
Sure - though the basic point that pir isn’t what we hear stands.
That’s marketing-hack speak for “countertop slabs.”
What were you striking it with? Normal drumstick or some other implement?
1 - 20 of 21393 Posts
